300 P.3d 435
Wash. Ct. App.2013Background
- Fey sued Community Colleges of Spokane for failure to accommodate his disability after not being interviewed for a grounds lead promotion due to his inability to obtain a CDL.
- A jury awarded $7,549 for lost wages; the trial court added $71,193 in attorney fees and $9,150 in costs through additur, which the district challenged on appeal.
- CDL licensing became a district-wide requirement for grounds crew after 2007; grandfathering accommodated some pre-existing workers who could not obtain licenses.
- The district revised GNS position descriptions in 2007 to require CDL, making CDL a central eligibility criterion for the grounds lead role at SCC.
- Fey, who cannot obtain a CDL due to a genetic eye condition, applied for the SCC GNS 4 position but was not interviewed; he later sought waiver of the CDL requirement as an accommodation.
- The district argued that being able to drive CDL equipment was an essential function of the grounds lead position and that accommodation was therefore not required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether driving CDL equipment is an essential function of the grounds lead role | Fey contends the district cannot show the function is essential or that accommodation was impossible | District contends CDL driving is an essential function and thus not accommodable | Yes; the district established the essential-function defense and JMOL was warranted |
| Whether grandfathering of certain employees defeats the essential-function finding | Fey argues grandfathering shows non-essential status of CDL requirement | Grandfathering does not negate that CDL driving is essential for the role | No; grandfathering does not defeat essential-function finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Criswell v. Western Airlines, 472 U.S. 400 (U.S. Supreme Court 1985) (BFOQ scope and business necessity standards for discrimination)
- Johnson Controls, Inc. v. United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers, 499 U.S. 187 (U.S. Supreme Court 1991) (disparate-impact defense: business necessity/position-related)
- Pulcino v. Federal Express Corp., 141 Wn.2d 629 (Wash. 2000) (employer not required to alter fundamental job duties to accommodate)
- Davis v. Microsoft Corp., 149 Wn.2d 521 (Wash. 2003) (employer need not redesign job to meet accommodations; essential functions standards)
- Clarke v. Shoreline School District No. 412, 106 Wn.2d 102 (Wash. 1986) (ADA interpretation: employer determines essential functions; courts defer)